# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 20, 2019

Decided March 20, 2019

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 18-2202

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

,

v

.

MIGUEL BARRERA-SOBERANIS, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

No. 17 CR 72-1

Virginia M. Kendall, J udge

.

O R D E R

After his removal to Mexico in 2014, Mi guel Barrera-Soberanis returned to the
United States and was arrested in 2016 in La ke County, Illinois. He pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced him to 48 months’ imprisonment—below the Guid elines range of 57 to 71 months—and he now appeals that sentence. His appointed lawyer, however, moves to withdraw from the appeal, arguing that it is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Barrera-Soberanis has not responded to counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 51(b). Because counsel’s supporting brief explains the nature of the case and addresses issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to in volve, we limit our review to the subjects she NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 18-2202 Page 2

discusses. See United States v. Bey , 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Wagner , 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

Counsel first informs us that Barrera-Sobera nis told her that he does not wish to withdraw his guilty plea; counsel therefore properly does not discuss the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of Barrera-Soberanis’s plea colloquy. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11;
United States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox , 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002).

Barrera-Soberanis does wish to contest the length of his sentence and the calculation of his Guidelines range, so coun sel explores both potential challenges. She begins with the Guidelines calculation an d correctly concludes that Barrera-Soberanis has no worthwhile argument. The judge correctly ruled that Barrera-Soberanis had a base offense level of eight and that he qu alified for two eight-level enhancements for felony convictions before and after his re moval in 2014. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a), (b)(2)(B), (b)(3)(B). The judge also properly reduced hi s offense level three points for acceptance of responsibility, yielding a total offense level of 21. See id. § 3E1.1. His criminal history, which consists of felony trespass to a residence, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of marijuana, led to a score of seven, see id. § 4A1.1, and a criminal-history category of IV, see id. ch. 5 pt. A. The district court rightly concluded that these numbers generate a sent encing range of 57 to 71 months. Id.

Finally, counsel considers whether Barrera-Soberanis could challenge the reasonableness of his sentence and properly concludes that such a challenge would also be pointless. Barrera-Soberanis’s 48-month sentence is below the low end of his calculated Guidelines range. We would pres ume that Barrera-Soberanis’s sentence is reasonable because it is below the range, see United States v. Purham , 795 F.3d 761, 765 (7th Cir. 2015), and we agree with counsel that the record presents no basis to disturb the presumption. The district judge adequately weighed the relevant factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the arguably mitigating fa ctor of violence in Mexico, the serious nature of returning unlawfully to the United States after removal for committing a felony, and the need to deter Barrera-Sobera nis and others from unlawfully doing the

same. See United States v. Nania , 724 F.3d 824, 838–39 (7th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.